The GT 2000 is my benchmark "normal running shoe", and I think of it as a great implementation of a number of bad ideas. The GT 2000 is nicely engineered, but its features go against The Science of Running Shoes. I'm always surprised and impressed that so many people can run as well as they do in traditional running shoes. I only run in the GT 2000s when I'm comparing them against something else, and all too often the GT 2000 feels like a wooden clog rather than a running shoe. I've rated it as "Not Recommended." (I use The Science of Running Shoes as the basis of how I test running shoes and what you should look for in a running shoe.)

1 Characteristics

Why you’d buy it. If you're looking for a traditional running shoe, then the GT 2000 is a great example, but I strongly suggest you look for something better.

Cushioning. The GT 2000 is quite poorly cushioned for its weight. While it has a thick heel, the foam is quite hard on the inside edge of the heel in an attempt to prevent Pronation. The rear cushioning is similar to shoes that are far lighter, and the forefoot cushioning is not much better.

Drop. The GT 2000 does not have as much of a drop as many traditional shoes. I find that its 6mm drop is more than I'd like, but it only causes slight changes to my biomechanics. Many traditional shoes have 10mm drop, which means my heels tend to scrape on the forward swing and I become more of a heel striker.

Structure. The GT 2000 has quite a bit of over engineering, with multiple densities of foam and some gel to interfere with your biomechanics. It also has a hard plastic arch section that I dislike.

Flexibility. The GT 2000 has little flexibility, and I find it feels overly rigid. While the flexibility is similar to a Maximalist shoe, in practice those shoes have massively cushioned midsoles that allow the foot to flex within the shoe as the midsole compresses. I find the GT 2000 feels far more like a clog than even the biggest Hoka shoes.

Outsole. There's a good layer of harder rubber outsole over all the contact areas on the GT 2000, which should help with its longevity.

Shape. Like most shoes, the Asics GT 2000 seems to have been designed by someone who has never see an human foot. Cutting open the toe box helps quite a bit. (I recommend cutting open the toe box of virtually all running shoes, with the exception of a few shoes like some Altra shoes. When you have some worn out shoes, you should try cutting open the toe box. I've found that it's a big improvement, allowing my toes to move naturally and engage for toe off, as well as reducing the possibility of blisters.)

Upper. The upper is unpadded in the forefoot, where there are also a number of overlays and seams. The rear of the shoe has good soft padding, especially around the ankle opening which is deeply padded.

Tongue. The GT 2000 has a traditional tongue that is has a tab to attach it to the laces, and the tongue has lots of thick, soft padding.

Lacing. The round laces don't stayed tied as well as I'd like, and rather unusually the laces are a little short. Most shoes have laces that tend towards the long side.

Heel Counter. The GT 2000 has a hard, ridged heel counter that comes quite a way forward. Thankfully, the thick padding insulates your foot from the negative effects of the heel counter.

Please support this site

This review was made possible by readers like you buying products via my links. I buy all the
products I review through normal retail channels, which allows me to create unbiased reviews free
from the influence of reciprocity, or the need to keep vendors happy. It
also ensures I don't get "reviewer specials" that are better than the retail versions.

2 Cushioning and Shoes

It's intuitively obvious that the cushioning in a shoe will reduce the impact on your body when running. However, The Science of Running Shoes indicates that the reality is rather more complex. While slight cushioning may reduce the effort needed to run by improving your Running Economy, most scientific research indicates that more cushioning does further improve Running Economy. In addition, cushioning does not generally reduce impact and may actually increase it. This is counterintuitive, but is likely to be due to the way a runners mind and body adapts to softer cushioning. Unfortunately, the scientific evidence is far from complete and it's hard to give clear recommendations. I believe that some runners will prefer more cushioning, while others prefer less, and typically those running further have a fondness for greater cushioning. I also believe that a shoe should be as light as possible, and a shoe should justify its weight with the cushioning it provides. My advice is to decide what level of cushioning you're looking for, and then find the lightest shoes that also fit well and are comfortable.

3 Visualizing the Attributes of the Asics GT 2000

How Asics GT 2000 compares showing rearfoot cushioning against the performance penalty of its weight. Upper right is better.

How Asics GT 2000 compares showing forefoot cushioning against the performance penalty of its weight. Upper right is better.

How Asics GT 2000 compares showing the price against the benefit (cushioning/performance penalty). Upper left is better.

How Asics GT 2000 compares showing the loaded drop against the benefit (cushioning/performance penalty). Upper left is better.

4 Comparisons

Here are some direct comparisons with its potential competition.

4.1 Asics GT 2000 and Asics Gel Hyper Speed

The GT 2000 has an advantage over the Hyper Speed with better padding in the upper, especially in the tongue and ankle opening. However, in every other area the Hyper Speed is vastly better. The Hyper Speed is just over half the weight of the GT 2000, but provides better cushioning and is a lot more flexible. Running in the GT 2000 after the Hyper Speed feels like you've put on a wooden clog. The weight difference impacts your Running Economy, and the calculations suggest that an average runner in the Hyper Speed is around 8 seconds/mile faster than in the GT 2000. (In practice, I feel like it's a bigger difference than that.)

Asics GT2000 top

Asics GT2000 bottom

Asics GT2000 inside

Asics GT2000 outside

Asics Gel Hyper Speed 6 top

Asics Gel Hyper Speed 6 bottom

Asics Gel Hyper Speed 6 inside

Asics Gel Hyper Speed 6 outside

4.2 Asics GT 2000 and Hoka Clifton

The Hoka Clifton is the best Maximalist shoe by far, combining massive cushioning with light weight. By comparison, the GT 2000 is nearly 50% heavier, but provides far less cushioning. The GT 2000 has a little more padding in the rear of the upper, and a much nicer tongue, but that's about it's only advantage.

Asics GT2000 top

Asics GT2000 bottom

Asics GT2000 inside

Asics GT2000 outside

Hoka OneOne Clifton top

Hoka OneOne Clifton bottom

Hoka OneOne Clifton inside

Hoka OneOne Clifton outside

4.3 Asics GT 2000 and New Balance RC5000

This is a rather extreme comparison as the GT 2000 weights over three times as much as the RC5000. The GT 2000 gives a lot more cushioning than the RC5000, with better padding in the upper, especially in the tongue and ankle opening. Running in the GT 2000 after the RC5000 feels like you've put on wooden clogs and ankle weights. My calculation suggests that an average runner in the RC5000 is around 12 seconds/mile faster than in the GT 2000, though I suspect it's a bigger difference than that in practice.

New Balance MRC 5000 top

New Balance MRC 5000 bottom

New Balance MRC 5000 inside

New Balance MRC 5000 outside

Asics GT2000 top

Asics GT2000 bottom

Asics GT2000 inside

Asics GT2000 outside

5 A Comparison with other Recommended Shoes

If you're looking for "the best of the best" running shoe, here are my top picks. Of course, the answer will depend a little on what you're looking for, so I have recommendations for various categories.

Best All Round Shoe. The Altra Escalante is my current all-round favorite. It has plenty of cushioning for its weight, it has a very springy midsole, it lasts well, and it has a shape that's closer to the shape of a human foot than most shoes. It's a great shoe for any runner, including those Starting to run. It's also a fairly easy shoe to find due to its popularity.

Best Maximalist Shoe: If you want something massively cushioned, then I'd recommend the Saucony Kinvara 8. It's remarkably light and remarkably cushioned, beating Hoka at their own game.

Best Optimal Shoe: For those looking to trade cushioning for speed, the Nike Zoom Streak LT is my top pick. There are lots of great optimal running shoes, which provide just enough cushioning with light weight and minimal frills. The Streak LT doesn't have the best cushioning-to-weight ratio, but it has a shape that's closer to the human foot than most running shoes and it's one of the longest lasting shoes I've found. It's not as comfy as the Escalante above, but it's faster.

Fastest Shoe: If you really want speed, then check out the Nike Vaporfly 4%. It's light, massively cushioned, and has a carbon fiber plate. Nothing comes close, not even the now defunct New Balance RC5000‏‎ or New Balance RC5000v2‏‎. There are a number of caveats; it's really expensive, it's really hard to find, and there's a significant injury risk.

Best Minimalist Shoe: Merrell Trail Glove. I recommend the trail glove for road running in spite of the 'trail' moniker. It's not a fast shoe by any means, but it's comfortable and will last well.

All Terrain Shoe. I don't generally review trail running shoes, but check out the Hoka Mafate if you're after a shoe with remarkable abilities on a wide range of surfaces. If you want a Hiking Boot, then I love the Hoka Tor Ultra.

Honorable Mention: It's not really a running shoe, but the Vivobarefoot Ra is comfortable, minimalist and can more or less pass as a dress shoe. I've worn mine to weddings with a suit and they've not looked out of place. You can run in the Ra, but the leather means it doesn't breathe well.